Skip to comments.
Nuke Mecca? Nope.
Frontpage Magazine ^
| 28 July 2005
| Robert Spencer
Posted on 07/28/2005 9:39:56 AM PDT by rdb3
Why not bomb Mecca? Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has brought the issue to the table. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has demanded that he apologize to Muslims, and commentators left and right have subjected him to vociferous criticism. At the same time, however, he seems to have tapped into the frustration that many Americans feel about official Washington’s politically correct insistence, in the face of ever-mounting evidence to the contrary, that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.
Although Tancredo’s presidential hopes and possibly even his seat in Congress may go up in the mushroom cloud created by the furor over his remarks, the idea of destroying Islamic holy sites in response to a devastating terror attack on American soil is not going to go away – particularly as long as elected officials rush after every Islamic terror attack to repeat the well-worn mantras about how they know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor violence and reject extremism, and are our faithful and reliable allies against terrorism in all its forms.
However, although the resentment Tancredo has tapped is real and has legitimate causes, his suggestion that “among the many things we might do to prevent such an attack on America would be to lay out there as a possibility the destruction” of Islamic holy sites is still wrong — but not generally for the reasons that most analysts have advanced.
Primarily, of course, it contravenes Western principles of justice which, if discarded willy-nilly, would remove a key reason why we fight at all: to preserve Western ideas of justice and human rights that are denied by the Islamic Sharia law so beloved of jihad terrorists. But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world, there are practical reasons to reject what Tancredo has suggested.
Tancredo’s idea, of course, is based on the old Cold War principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Both sides threatened each other with nuclear annihilation, and the threats canceled each other out. The Soviets would no more risk Moscow being wiped out than we would Washington.
But applying this principle to present-day Islamic jihad is not so easy. The Soviets did not inculcate into their cadres the idea enunciated by Maulana Inyadullah of al-Qaeda shortly after 9/11: “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.” This lust for death runs through the rhetoric of today’s jihadists, and goes all the way back in Islamic history to the Qur’an, in which Allah instructs Muhammad: “Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful” (62:6). Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? It seems unlikely in the extreme — and that fact nullifies all the value this thread may have had as a deterrent. Nuke Mecca? Why bother? It wouldn’t work.
Others have argued, however, that the deterrent value of destroying Islamic holy sites would lie not in giving jihad terrorists pause, but in showing Islam itself to be false and thus removing the primary motivation of today’s jihad terrorists. If Allah is all-powerful and rewards those who believe in him while hating and punishing the disbelievers (the “vilest of creatures,” according to Qur’an 98:6), wouldn’t he protect his holy sites from these disbelievers?
However, Muslims have weathered such shocks to their system in the past. In 1924, the secular government of Turkey abolished the caliphate; the caliph was considered the successor of the Prophet Muhammad as the religious and political leader of the Islamic community. By abolishing the office, Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk hoped to strike at the heart of political Islam and create a context in which Islam could develop something akin to the Western idea of the separation of religion and state. Instead, his act provided the impetus for the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern Islamic terrorist organization, in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood and its offshoots (which include Hamas and Al-Qaeda), and indeed virtually all jihadist groups in the world today, date the misery of the Islamic world to the abolition of the caliphate. The ultimate goal of such groups is the restoration of this office, the reunification of the Islamic world under the caliph, and the establishment of the Sharia as the sole law in Muslim countries. Then the caliph would presumably take up one of his principal duties as stipulated by Islamic law: to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslim states in order to extend Sharia rule to them also.
The abolition of the caliphate, then, accomplished precisely the opposite of what Ataturk hoped it would: it gave the adherents of political Islam a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize. In essence, it gave birth to the crisis that engulfs the world today. It is likely that a destruction of the Ka’aba or the Al-Aqsa Mosque would have the same effect: it would become source of spirit, not of dispirit. The jihadists would have yet another injury to add to their litany of grievances, which up to now have so effectively confused American leftists into thinking that the West is at fault in this present conflict. But the grievances always shift; the only constant is the jihad imperative. Let us not give that imperative even greater energy in the modern world by supplying such pretexts needlessly.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: islam; islamicagenda; islamisevil; islamisnotareligion; islamists; mecca; muslim; nukemecca; robertspencer; tancredo; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 221-232 next last
To: rdb3
But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world
STOP RIGHT THERE.
This is not a post Hiroshima world. This is A Hiroshima world. And if the Religion-of-Peace Islamist get a nuke, they will prove it.
The only thing Tancredo said that was wrong is that we should RESPOND with nuking Mecca. Time for Response was in 1993 - THE FIRST WTC BOMBING.
Its long past due for a response. Time to Nuke Tehran Now. (after you give them 48 hours to get outta town. I want them to see it)
161
posted on
07/28/2005 1:42:32 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: rdb3
I actually think that Trancredo will get even more votes now.
162
posted on
07/28/2005 1:43:00 PM PDT
by
KC_Conspirator
(This space outsourced to India)
To: JamesP81
Not one-tenth as stupid as not retaliating in kind, immediately. Retaliating against ... who?
163
posted on
07/28/2005 1:46:01 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: dubyaismypresident
Let us not give that imperative even greater energy in the modern world
Even greater energy? I think they have maxed out their energy levels and are coming at us at 100 percent. What else do you call TWO attacks on the WTC - in 93 and 01?
Geeez.
Thats like saying - lets not make the Japanese madder at us- after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
164
posted on
07/28/2005 1:47:12 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: I see my hands
Ok, Boom! No Charlotte, NC. What do you do? Kill whoever did it, of course. But in so doing, make damned sure that my response doesn't compound my problems.
The problem is, you still haven't told me who did it. Should be a simple question for you to answer, but you still haven't answered it. I wonder why?
165
posted on
07/28/2005 1:50:12 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
Your attempt at engaging illogical people in a logical debate is admirable, but fruitless.
At this point, even such hard-core supporters of Rep. Tancredo as Michelle Malkin have commented on the fact that Mr. Tancredo should retract his remarks, and apologize for them, but apparently the vast Armies of military and Islamic experts in FR do not agree.
Beauseant!
166
posted on
07/28/2005 1:53:49 PM PDT
by
Lancelot Jones
(Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
To: JCEccles
"You take out what is dear to your enemy; you crush what sustains his morale. Mecca fits the bill like no other target."
I'd rather take the ENEMY out. I think the enemy REALLY fits the bill.
(I'm of the opinion that it is a grave flaw to believe Islam will be subdued by having Mecca destroyed. They are suicidal, fanatical, deeply culturally irrational. Their hate would reach an orgasmic level of nihilism if Mecca were nuked.)
To: Lancelot Jones
168
posted on
07/28/2005 2:00:25 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Paul Ross
Tancredo has helped to create "Strategic Ambiguity".
The "Crazy Old Man on the Block Strategy". You know, the house on the block all the kids avoid because you never know what the crazy old man living there might do. Reagan was accused of it ( "hey, the old cowboy is nuts and he may just push The Button..." ). It's a brilliant ploy.
169
posted on
07/28/2005 2:08:50 PM PDT
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: r9etb
Ok, Boom! No Charlotte, NC. What do you do?
Put up a map of the ME. Throw three darts at it. Nuke the three closest Muslim cities. or 5 or ten, or whatever it takes to get the message across. the Japanese got it after #2.
170
posted on
07/28/2005 2:14:17 PM PDT
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: macamadamia
Mecca isn't home in a military sense. If we are nuked, "hoping" and "giving pause" are poor strategies.
In this, you are correct. If we are nuked, then deterrence has failed.
Terrorists are empowered by the states that sponsor them, that arm them...this is where we strike.
I see now. I was under the impression that many here opposed the nuking of Mecca because of public insult it offered Islam. My mistake. I see that you are arguing that the response shouldn't be limited to Mecca. And you're right. If we were to get nuked I would definitely think that all terorrist sponsoring states would be counter attacked with nuclear weapons. And I think if we are going to use deterrence, then we must be willing to carry through if the situation requires it.
All that said, let me make two points: first of all, I think Saudi Arabia is a terrorist sponsoring state. And since Mecca is also a major city in SA, it would catch a nuke under these plans you outline, albeit for different reasons. Second of all, I think it's a mistake to discount the psychological effect the credible threat of a nuclear strike on Mecca would cause. I think that would give muslims the world over something to think about, in SA, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere.
If you're going to bust out and use nukes, you shouldn't mess around and use just one. If you're going to do it, do it hardcore and completely eliminate all opposition. Hopefully it won't come to this. But part of using deterrence as a strategy means that we must be willing to do it if deterrence fails.
To: Kozak
Points for honesty. Points off for making a dumb move: do you really think the bin Ladens of the world would be all that upset if you chose to nuke random Muslim cities? And do you really think the response against us would be limited to followers of Islam? Isn't it just possible that, say, China, Russia, and a few other places might become upset or opportunistic, and begin making things difficult for us elsewhere?
The case of Japan differs from this one in the sense that we were unambiguously at war with Japan, as a coherent nation. We have no such enemy in this case -- we have a movement composed of small cells spread throughout the world. In some cases (e.g., Afghanistan) it was possible to identify a nation-scale supporter. Nobody on this thread has yet bothered to identify who committed the deed -- and so it's impossible to formulate a response.
172
posted on
07/28/2005 2:22:27 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: JamesP81
was under the impression that many here opposed the nuking of Mecca because of public insult it offered Islam. No. It's because nuking Mecca would gain us about a billion active enemies that we currently do not have. Not a smart move.
173
posted on
07/28/2005 2:24:31 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: macamadamia
I'd rather take the ENEMY out. I think the enemy REALLY fits the bill. (I'm of the opinion that it is a grave flaw to believe Islam will be subdued by having Mecca destroyed. They are suicidal, fanatical, deeply culturally irrational. Their hate would reach an orgasmic level of nihilism if Mecca were nuked.) I'd rather take the ENEMY out. I think the enemy REALLY fits the bill.
One of the oldest and most time honored ways of doing this is first crushing his morale, then defeating him. This has been done in pretty much every war ever fought.
Their hate would reach an orgasmic level of nihilism if Mecca were nuked.)
And it hasn't already?
To: rdb3
Nuke Mecca?
"Yeah"
TANCREDO 2008
To: Bommer
But for the anti-Tancrado crowd: What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican? Taking their shoes off at their local mosque and proclaiming Islam as the "religion of peace". Oh wait, someone already tried that. Didn't work.
To: r9etb
Retaliating against ... who?
Let me make this clear. It's a concept that the whole country has trouble understanding, so let me say it clearly, and concisely.
ISLAM
Let me say that again, so we don't have any confusion.
ISLAM
Before we go any further, I will say this: there are many fine people out their who happen to be muslims. No argument there. But they have done little to nothing to, at the bare minimum, dissociate themselves from the elements that do things like 9/11. If they aren't doing so, then they are lending their tacit approval to terrorists (if you're not with us, you're against us?)
The sooner we, as a people, learn that this war was started by extremist muslims the sooner we will be able to effectively deal with them. So, once again, to answer your question as to who: EXTREMIST MUSLIMS.
Their HQ is in Mecca.
To: Agamemnon
Pig fat dipped bullets Ya know, that would be a good PsyOps trick -- get a rumor on the "Arab Street" that American soldiers are doing that so getting in a gunfight with them is an even worse idea.
178
posted on
07/28/2005 2:35:32 PM PDT
by
Shazbot29
(If you paid attention you'd be worried, too!)
To: JamesP81
If I take your post in its entirety, you're saying that ISLAM == EXTREMIST MUSLIMS.
All billion plus of them.
And you're going to start a real shooting war with all of them.
Very smart.
179
posted on
07/28/2005 2:42:16 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: macamadamia
"Their hate would reach an orgasmic level of nihilism if Mecca were nuked."
Actually Muslims faithfully believe mecca is indestructible. Once we vaporize mecca it would prove their entire religion is a sham, just an excuse to abuse women children and infidels.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 221-232 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson